The editorial looked like a childish "you'd be saying the same things we say about BUSH if GORE was declared the winner" attempt at a smear.

Odd, here I am distinctly recalling myself thinking "if a bunch of people complained they'd been 'tricked' by the ballots into voting for Buchanan instead of Bush, I'd consider them idiots as well" way back in November 2000.

Oh, I get it....when Rall writes "Al Gore," it's code forf "George W. Bush," or "Shrub," if you want to make a funny.
Clever doesn't even begin to describe this...I think the propere word would be Genius. Pulitzer, anyone?

Like most other people, i had totally forgotten about the election. 9-11 (not bush's fault of course, but also not something he should be all that commended for -can you think of anyone who DIDN't "heroically stand steadfast for their nation in its time of need" or whatever? rudy g. wasn't all that popular with some before then either as i recall..)
will that have effect.

I was reading something that mentioned the election just the other day, and it reminded me. Bush was selected rather than elected, and the exact details of the florida stuff aren't likely to ever be fully known. counting aside, there are so many other "what ifs," in addition to the whole actual # of nationwide votes issues -yes i understand the electoral college process, blah blah.
anyways, as a "won by a nose" administration, both in the white house and senate, it's interesting how they talk and govern as if they had a heavenly mandate. who knows, maybe some of them think they do?

Greg,
Never mind the fact that every single independent recount done since the 2000 election in Florida has shown Bush to be the winner of that state. You and Ted can go on for the rest of your lives thinking that Bush is "President Select" or "the Resident" or whatever clever and snarky little name that you want to give. But Gore lost. Bush is in the White House. He won. I'd tell you to get over it, but I'm not a big fan of futility...

Exactly, Sean. As my political leanings have swayed over the past 2 years I am reminded of my reaction to the 2000 elections.

One of them was, "It will be interesting to see what the unofficial, non-binding recounts will say" after the fact. And the fact is, they all say Bush won Florida. It's as simple as that. Well, not really. There are, of course, conspiracy theorists who would totally discount any "facts".

Since Bush won a greater percentage of the popular vote than Clinton ever did (thanks to Perot being his "Nader," especially in 1992) does that mean Clinton didn't have a mandate? Or do your rules of political legitimacy apply selectively?

This post is pretty well dead and gone, but just to clear a couple things up:
whether he "won" or won, whatever. bush is president, i know that.
I didn't even bring up nader, as with clinton with perot. the thing about the popular vote is meaningless, just that more people voted for gore, blah blah blah. I'm not even really a democratic.
I just think it's important to remember that pre-911 there were some serious questions, founded or not (and since when did that really matter? it doesn't today coughIraqiraq) as to bush's legitimacy. then came 9-11, and he was our man. it's really easy to be a war-time president. at least when you can pick and choose your "wars."